$5,000 Retro Fit Hybrid Kit
in [Basics]
|
Prev: Video about wardforce
Next: Gerber files
From: Bret Cahill on 14 Nov 2009 11:04 > >> Even the prototype is only $100K. > > >>http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218400113&cid... > > >> Leave the big engine in there for the road trips. > > >> The unsprung weight doubles and the batteries might not always be near > >> the original design center of mass but aside from that it's a really > >> good idea. > > "What makes our approach different is we don't need to modify anything > in existing vehicles to turn them into a hybrid," said Perry. "We > install the motor in the space between the brake mechanism and the hub > without any other modifications." > > I wish the image had the resolution to be readable, I couldn't find any patents or applications for Charles Perry. It was probably invented back in the '70s. Several companies are coming out with them: http://nashville.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2009/10/12/story5.html > but that system > looks like it would push the wheels out (by going between the wheel > and the brake) and disturb the suspension geometry that would require > other changes. > The car would not drive well with all the battery weight and changed > suspension geometry without numerous other changes. It might be better than spending 50K for a Volt. > If there is something that hangs on the inboard side it might work by > making FWD cars be RWD cars in electric mode, but it would interfere > with drive shafts in the front on FWD cars and the rear axle or drive > shafts on RWD cars. Front hubs or spindles on RWD cars won't accept > something hanging inside the brake very well in most cases. If axles were hollow they could be mounted on the outside of the wheels. Bret Cahill
From: jim on 14 Nov 2009 11:41 "leonard78sp(a)gmail.com" wrote: > > > > There is something wrong with your hallucinations. According to > > > > Petrobras the Tupi oil field contains 5-8 billion barrels. The world > > > > uses 31 billion a year. > > > �� It would seem that John Larkin is responsible > for the hallucinations. USA is not the whole > world in case John hasn't noticed > > > Ah of course it must be John Larkin who is responsible for those halucinations. Maybe another snort of gasoline will fix it ,,,
From: John Larkin on 14 Nov 2009 13:08 On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:16:13 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> Even the prototype is only $100K. >> >> >> >>http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218400113&cid... >> >> >> >> Leave the big engine in there for the road trips. >> >> >> >> The unsprung weight doubles and the batteries might not always be near >> >> >> the original design center of mass but aside from that it's a really >> >> >> good idea. >> >> >> >I came up with a similar idea a few years ago. >> >> >> >http://www.smart.net/~pstech/SHAMPAC.htm >> >> >> >It was too big a project for me alone and I had other priorities. There was >> >> >also the problem of making an electric motor that had sufficient torque and >> >> >speed for direct drive requirements, and I had planned to use a reduction >> >> >chain drive, but that added some mechanical engineering challenges. But I >> >> >found wheel hub motors available and in-use. And I found another website >> >> >that described how to replace the alternator with a larger motor/generator >> >> >which could be used to provide additional power from a battery bank and >> >> >also be used for regenerative braking. But that was not very efficient >> >> >because there was no easy way to unload the ICE to run on electric power >> >> >alone. >> >> >> >I recently saw the movie "End of Suburbia"http://www.endofsuburbia.com/ >> >> >which gives a lot of insight into how we in the US got into the situation >> >> >we are now in, and the ramifications of "Peak Oil", which is where we are >> >> >now or will be in a few years. >> >> >> Peak oil is always a few years ahead. >> >> >> �Cheap energy fueled the flight to the >> >> >> >suburbs and the inherently wasteful concept of long commutes and sprawling >> >> >individual houses for small families and individuals. >> >> >> Cheap oil changed a predominantly rural, farming society into a >> >> primarily urban one. >> >> >> �Auto makers and oil >> >> >> >companies made more profits as such a lifestyle became more popular. >> >> >> Of course. In the process they made us far, far more efficient and >> >> prosperous and healthy than we had been. >> >> >> �But >> >> >> >there is a finite amount of oil in the ground, and even though we are >> >> >unlikely to "run out" suddenly like draining a gas tank, it will become >> >> >increasingly costly to extract, and price will rise exponentially as demand >> >> >continues to increase, until most people simply will not have the money to >> >> >afford it. >> >> >> They will buy less as the price increases. This will happen slowly, >> >> and people will adapt. >> >> >> >The economy relies on increased growth which is untenable globally, so we >> >> >will need to adapt to an economy based on sustainable moderation and >> >> >reduction of spending. Our economy as presently configured is doomed >> >> >because it depends on continued sales of items that are based on cheap >> >> >energy, materials, transportation, and labor. Much of the economy is about >> >> >trade in items that are not essential and based on rapid obsolescence to be >> >> >discarded and replaced. But we may very well. in our lifetimes, see a point >> >> >where it will become difficult for most people to afford the essential >> >> >food, clothing, shelter, and heating that are now taken for granted. >> >> >> Food and clothing in the USA are incredibly cheap; go to a Wal-Mart >> >> and see. Houses are available in Detroit for $1. >> >> >And when the recession is over the price of fuel will soar to $10/ >> >gallon and beyond. >> >> And it will still be cheaper than a gallon of milk. > >Fuel is already higher than milk. This morning in San Francisco, a gallon or regular gas costs $3.20 and a gallon of whole milk is $3.99. A gallon of low-end drinking water can cost a lot more. I'd guess that making the milk liberated more carbon-based gases than making and burning the gasoline. I can drive 5 people from the Pacific Ocean http://www.jimprice.com/sutro/tower1.jpg to the Nevada border ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Exit201.jpg on about $18 worth of gasoline, under $4 per person. If we stop for a modest lunch, that will cost about twice as much as the fuel. I don't understand why you are down on something that works so well. John
From: John Larkin on 14 Nov 2009 13:17 On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:04:10 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> Even the prototype is only $100K. >> >> >>http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218400113&cid... >> >> >> Leave the big engine in there for the road trips. >> >> >> The unsprung weight doubles and the batteries might not always be near >> >> the original design center of mass but aside from that it's a really >> >> good idea. >> >> "What makes our approach different is we don't need to modify anything >> in existing vehicles to turn them into a hybrid," said Perry. "We >> install the motor in the space between the brake mechanism and the hub >> without any other modifications." >> >> I wish the image had the resolution to be readable, > >I couldn't find any patents or applications for Charles Perry. It was >probably invented back in the '70s. > >Several companies are coming out with them: > >http://nashville.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2009/10/12/story5.html This is the Mechanics Illustrated phenomenon: every month all sorts of amazing inventions are announced, all of which will revolutionize our lives and be on the market next year. That's been going on for 60 years or so. And they missed most of the things that have in fact revolutionized our lives. The systems you cite here don't appear to even have working prototypes in operation. And none appear to involve technology that wasn't available 10 years ago. Explain that. John
From: Bret Cahill on 14 Nov 2009 20:08
> >> >> Even the prototype is only $100K. > > >> >>http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218400113&cid... > > >> >> Leave the big engine in there for the road trips. > > >> >> The unsprung weight doubles and the batteries might not always be near > >> >> the original design center of mass but aside from that it's a really > >> >> good idea. > > >> "What makes our approach different is we don't need to modify anything > >> in existing vehicles to turn them into a hybrid," said Perry. "We > >> install the motor in the space between the brake mechanism and the hub > >> without any other modifications." > > >> I wish the image had the resolution to be readable, > > >I couldn't find any patents or applications for Charles Perry. It was > >probably invented back in the '70s. > > >Several companies are coming out with them: > > >http://nashville.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2009/10/12/story5.... > > This is the Mechanics Illustrated phenomenon: The best lampoon was National Lampoon on MI: "Convert your piano to diesel power." Maybe the letter of recommendation from an admitted pimp / vandal to Harvard Law School was better. "And since I was living under an assumed name . . ." > every month all sorts of > amazing inventions are announced, all of which will revolutionize our > lives and be on the market next year. That's been going on for 60 > years or so. And they missed most of the things that have in fact > revolutionized our lives. > > The systems you cite here don't appear to even have working prototypes > in operation. And none appear to involve technology that wasn't > available 10 years ago. Or a century ago. A lot of stuff gets patented before it's cost effective. > Explain that. The price of fuel hadn't gone over $5/gallon back then. Bret Cahill |